Community Capacity and Governance – New Approaches to Development and Evaluation

of resources that an actor can access or use through its location in a social network (Lin, 2000, p.786). Ove Frank (2004) describes social capital as the capacity to control the connectionsbetween people, “betweeness centrality”, or as the capacity to obtain support or information fromothers, “degree centrality” or “information centrality” (p. 219). Lin, Felp and Volker, and Frankdescribe social capital in similar ways, mostly focusing on actors and the resources that areavailable to them through their relationships (see also Van der Gaag & Snijders, 2004, p. 200).

Coleman (1988) elaborates on the concept of social capital a bit further. He looks at threedifferent forms of social capital: 1) obligations and expectations that are based on trust; 2) theinformation that can be obtained through social relations; and 3) the norms and sanctions thatfacilitate or constraint actions (as cited in Gaarder, Munar, & Sollis, 2003, p. 8). Overall, thereare two common defining features of social capital: 1) a set of social structures that 2) facilitatethe actions within those structures (Gaarder et al., 2003, p. 8). Consistent with the structuralperspective of social capital, Paxton (1999) divides social capital into two components: a)objective associations between individuals and b) a subjective type of tie – where the tiesbetween individuals must be of a particular type - reciprocal, trusting, and involving positiveemotion (p. 93). Social capital can be operationally defined as neighborhood cohesion or theability for community members to form strong social connections or formulate a sense ofcommunity (Boyd et al., 2006, p. 190).

Social capital has also been introduced to facilitate business management. Cohen and Prusak(2001) look at the utility of social capital in the business world. They define social capital asconsisting of the stock of active connation among people: the trust, mutual understanding, andshared values and behaviors that bind the members of networks and communities and makecooperative action possible (Cohen & Prusak, 2001, p. 4). The main focus of social capital inbusiness is to make an organization or any cooperative endeavor more cohesive and effective.

Social capital is produced through networks of relationships and investments in socialrelations (La Due Lake & Huckfeldt, 1998, p. 571; Lin, Cook, & Burt, 2001, p. 6). Thesenetworks convey resources, affecting the quality, quantity, novelty and availability of thoseresources, confirms identity, influences behavior, and reinforces the links between actors withinit (Wellman & Frank, 2001, p. 233). Networks cannot be manufactured or engineered; onlyencouraged (Cohen & Prusak, 2001, p. 23), thus social capital must develop normally within acommunity. It is important to the future of the community to support the development ofeffective relationships between community members and to provide activities and places forsocial interaction to occur (Pavey et al., 2007, pp. 108- 109).

La Due Lake and Huckfeldt (1998) insist that social capital is not possessed by individualsbecause it produced through structured patterns of social interaction, and must be judgedaccording to these patterns (p. 581; see also Cohen & Prusak, 2001, p. 4). It is for this reasonthat social capital cannot be defined, or for that matter identified, on the basis of individualcharacteristics (La Due Lake & Huckfeldt, 1998, p. 581). Social capital works in instrumentaland expressive actions not accounted for by forms of person capital, such as economic or humancapital, because embedded resources in social networks enhance the outcomes of actions sincethey provide a) information, b) influence, c) social credentials, and d) reinforcement of identityand recognition (Lin et al., 2001, pp. 6-7).

Social capital also involves the concepts of bonding and bridging capital in the formation oftrust, cooperation, and long-term relationships among community members and manifests itselfin terms of social support, shared vision and economic incentives for mutual interests. Asdescribed by Putnam (1993), bonding capital is anything in the community that brings

41

Page 42

acquaintances in the community closer together, and bridging capital is anything may bringmembers of the community who ordinarily wouldn’t know each other closer together (also citedin Gittell & Vidal, 1998, p. 19). Some examples of bonding capital include basic social activitiesamong friends, neighbors, and relatives like sharing a meal or helping one another. Bondingcapital gives communities a sense of identity and common purpose (Zacharakis & Flora, 2005, p.292). Bridging capital includes all of the activities that bring otherwise perfect strangerstogether. It connects diverse groups and builds links outside of a community (Zacharakis &Flora, 2005, p. 292). These may include social clubs and issue-based local organizations andother forms of broad social networking. Bridging capital also works to balance bonding capitalfrom becoming too narrow or precluding access to information and material resources that mightotherwise be useful to the community (Zacharakis & Flora, 2005, p. 292).

Granovetter has also described similar constructs, with strong ties (like kinships or intimatefriendships) being equated to bonding capital and weak ties (like acquaintances and sharedmembership in secondary associations) being similar to bridging capital (as cited in Putnam,1993, p. 175; see also Paxton, 1999, p. 100). Putnam (1993) goes on to say that weak ties, orbridging capital, is more important than strong ties, or bonding capital, in promoting collectiveaction and community cohesion (p. 175; Uslaner & Dekker, 2001, p. 183). Furthermore, ingeneral, it is the ties between individual actors in a network that is more important than theaggregate capital of the network (Wellman & Frank, 2001, p. 258).

Social integration is a concept that is related to social capital. Ideal social integrationincludes the capability for collective action, the sharing of traditions and customs,interdependence based on reciprocity, and continuous interaction (Figueira-McDonough, 2001,p. 18). Productive social exchange makes the difference between mere interaction and solidarity(Figueira-McDonough, 2001, p. 19) within a community. Social capital, a result of socialintegration and exchange, is important to a community in order for it to be seen as a cohesiveunit, avoid anarchy, and be able to pursue collective activities (Figueira-McDonough, 2001, p.17).

Social capital is the ‘glue’ that brings communities together and allows them to performfunctions and overcome adversity. The basic assertion of social capital is that those with moresocial capital are better able to reach their goals or defend their interests (Felp & Volker, 2004, p.5). As with other forms of capital, actors with social capital have a greater propensity toaccumulate more (Putnam, 1993, p. 169). Unlike economic capital, using social capital increasesits abundance without risk instead of depleting it (Putnam, 1993, p. 169). Conversely, thevarious forms of social capital diminish if they are not used in a timely fashion (Putnam, 1993, p.170). For these reasons, cycles of social capital creation and destruction should be expected(Putnam, 1993, p. 170).

Communities with high levels of social capital are more likely to have high levels ofvoluntarism, more effective local government, lower levels of crime, more socially responsiblebusinesses, more successful businesses, and generally positive economic outcomes (Putnam,1993), including greater economic equality and employment stability (Besser et al., 2008, p.582). Social capital can be used to mobilize people for the collective good and is an importantresource for community improvement (Besser et al., 2008, p. 582). This is because communityactions become more sophisticated through policy interventions and projects that involve thecommunity (Saegert, 2005; Mendis-Millard & Reed, 2007; Miyoshi & Stenning, 2008

Social capital is a key component of community development because it leads to ties betweenpeople that lead to greater trust and cooperation, as well as networking opportunities, and better

42

Page 43

access to resources (Felp & Volker, 2004; Gittell & Vidal, 1998; Uslaner & Dekker, 2001;Zacharakis & Flora, 2005, p. 292). Furthermore, high amounts of social capital can encourageretention of human resources, facilitate change, and promote solidarity (Cohen & Prusak, 2001,p. 19). Spontaneous cooperation is easier in a community that has substantial amounts of socialcapital (Putnam, 1993, p. 167). Cooperation is important in terms of obtaining and poolingresources, as well as implementing a productive local policy with widespread benefits.

Generalized reciprocity is the mechanism through which social capital functions (Putnam,1993, p. 172). The idea of generalized reciprocity is that a service is repaid, when necessary, atan unspecified time in the future and often times by a different kind of service (Felp & Volker,2004, pp. 5-6). The norm of generalized reciprocity is important in a community contextbecause it restrains opportunism among members and resolves problems of collective action,solving for the problem of self-interest versus solidarity (Putnam, 1993, p. 172). This cancontemporarily been seen in the concept of ‘paying it forward.’ The productive mechanism ofsocial capital is that it provides opportunities for people to use the assets at their disposaltypicallytheir human resources, sometimes their financial capital, information or understandingof particular situations, obligations from other relationships, or pressure to conform to andinternalize norms - to gain access to resources they do not have access to themselves (Felp &Volker, 2004, p. 15).

Trust is highly associated with generalized reciprocity (Paxton, 1999, p. 98). In the absenceof trust, there would be no belief that those in power will follow the “rules of the game” leavingother actors unwilling to relinquish any power that they might have (Paxton, 1999, p. 102).Authenticity and genuiness is necessary to build trust and for the success of social capital (Cohen& Prusak, 2001, p. 14). According to Cohen and Prusak (2001), trust is the function of arelationship and when people are trusted they tend to be trustworthy (p. 31). Starting with a baseof trust encourages more trust (Cohen & Prusak, 2001, p. 49). Trust is eroded in communitiesthat are loosely connected and anonymous (Cohen & Prusak, 2001, p. 33).

Trust is both a necessary component of social capital, as well as a result of it (Uslaner &Dekker, 2001, p. 179). Trust grows from and contributes to transparency, and expands fromknowledge sharing and participation (Cohen & Prusak, 2001, pp. 41, 46). It is problematic todetermine how much trust is created through membership in groups, namely because people witha trusting nature are more likely to join groups (Uslaner & Dekker, 2001, p. 181), thus skewingand amplifying the propensity of trust generated. This can create some difficulty in determiningthe starting pointing for analyzing trust and social capital or creating policy to enhance it.

When communities are comprised of many individuals that have suitable amounts of socialcapital that community is better able to leverage collective action to solve the problems that theyface leaving the community as whole better, both in terms of individuals and the group, withhigher potentials for economic gain (Gittell & Vidal, 1998, p. 15; Paxton, 1999, p. 93; Wellman& Frank, 2001, p. 259). Having access to social capital allows individuals and communities toachieve goals that otherwise would not be possible (Felp & Volker, 2004, p. 5). This is becausethe norms of trust and reciprocity inherent in social capital facilitates mutually beneficialcooperation in a community, which reduces vulnerability and increased opportunities (Gaarder etal., 2003, p. 12).

Furthermore, the social capital possessed by a group may not be immediately apparent andcould be latent and harnessed as a potential energy (Paxton, 1999, p. 93). The social capital in acommunity is not limited to the aggregate of the social capital of the individuals in thecommunity; it is also affected by the social capital of the institutions and organizations at work in

43

Page 44

the community. The more collaboration there is of institutions on similar levels the greater theamount of social capital in the community (Gaarder et al., 2003, p.12; Putnam, 1993).

Networks are more than ad hoc strands of acquaintances. They require maintenance to beviable, needing investments of time, energy and emotion, as well as propensity for reciprocity(Cohen & Prusak, 2001, p. 58). Different investments in social capital lead to different results.Short-term investments in social capital lead to fewer returns. Short-term investments in socialcapital occur most frequently when the actors have either complete uncertainty or completecertainty about the future of their relationship or when they do not know their future role in therelationship (Riedl & Van Winden, 2004, p. 100). On the other hand, when there is a benefit tobe gained from the relationship longer-term investments are made and those making theinvestments can expect to reap the benefits when they need it (Riedl & Van Winden, 2004, p.100).

There are four dimensions of networks: 1) knowledge - how well people know one another;2) access to knowledge; 3) engagement - actively listening to an inquiry and working withpeople and problems to provide useful knowledge and advice and a sense of connection; and 4)safety - individual reliability (Cohen & Prusak, 2001, p. 76). Networks can be categorized intwo ways: horizontal – where members are of relatively equal status and power; or vertical –where members are unequal engaging in relationships that are hierarchical and dependent(Putnam, 1993, p. 173). Networks of civic engagement, comprised of horizontal interactions, arean important for of social capital with dense networks providing mutual benefits for its members(Putnam, 1993, p. 173). Robust networks of civic engagement a) encourage greaterparticipation, b) develop norms of reciprocity, c) facilitate communication, d) improve the flowof information particularly regarding the trustworthiness of particular actors, and e) demonstratesuccessful past collaboration (Putnam, 1993, pp. 173-174); thus demonstrating the value ofdeveloping horizontal networks. Vertical networks, especially linkages to externalorganizations, can help to achieve community goals (Miller, 1992, p. 38). Disadvantaged groupscan particularly benefit from vertical networks with resource rich members (Lin, 2000, p. 788).

The volume of social capital possessed by a given agent depends on the network ofconnections that agent can mobilize and the volume of other capitals possessed by the othersmembers in that network (Bourdieu, 2002, p. 286). Determining the amount of social capital in agiven community or possessed by an individual is extremely difficult because there is a gapbetween the concept of social capital and its measurement (Paxton, 1999, pp. 89-90). Variousefforts have been made to try to quantify social capital, with some success (see Besser, Recker,& Agnitsh, 2008; Felp & Volker, 2004; Frank, 2004; La Due Lake & Huckfeldt, 1998;Zacharakis & Flora, 2005), but generally pales in usefulness to a general qualitativeunderstanding of a specific circumstance and context in relation to social capital.

Markets can interact with the social capital in a community, positively or negatively affectingthat social capital, thus shaping the direction of development and policy (Getz, 2008, p. 555).Christy Getz (2008) through her review of case studies in Mexico, found that the quantity andquality of social capital is connected to a) the history of state-sponsored or market agriculture, b)the nature of local institutions, and c) the access to and availability of natural resources, namelyland and water, which are both intricately connected to market access options (p. 555). Getz’srevelations demonstrate interconnectedness of the various sectors within a community, i.e.governance and markets, and their relationship to social capital.

High levels of social capital can help a community cope with the issues that they facetogether. Shocks, sudden events that significantly challenge the status quo where the bulk of the

44

Page 45

community is affected, can include the loss of a major employer, the opening of a new prison,natural disasters, and the boom and bust of industrial development (Besser et al., 2008, p. 580).These challenges can be fast moving or slow motion shocks that manifest over a long time(Besser et al., 2008, p. 580). Community shocks are followed by increases in social capital andquality of life (Besser et al., 2008, p. 580). This is because community members who facehardship together may be encouraged to create new or strengthen their relationships as they workto overcome the crisis (Besser et al., 2008, p. 582).

However, corrosive community shocks, crises borne only by certain groups within acommunity, result in a decline in social capital and quality of life (Besser et al., 2008, p. 580).The detrimental impact can be seen as communities find it harder to gather the necessaryresources to cope with the crisis and launch initiatives for community improvement (Besser etal., 2008, p. 582). Several small shocks have a similar effect on a community as one large shock(Besser et al., 2008, p. 601). The cumulative effects of shocks, although not an exact equation,can be balanced out. The detrimental affects of shocks can be balanced out with a series of smallshocks that generate positive effects (Besser et al., 2008, p. 602).

Unfortunately, both vertical and horizontal networks can have some very detrimental effects.Vertical networks do not sustain social trust and cooperation, their flows of information are oftenless reliable than horizontal flows, and they can develop asymmetrical exchanges and obligations(Putnam, 1993, p. 174) with those in lower positions often unduly burdened. On the other hand,horizontal networks that are formed in communities, groups, or networks that are isolated,parochial, or have malice toward the collective interest (e.g. drug cartels and corruption rackets)can hinder socioeconomic development (Zacharakis & Flora, 2005, p. 292).

Members of a social group have a tendency to form networks with other members from theirgroup (Lin, 2000, p. 787; Uslaner & Dekker, 2001, p. 180), thereby forming horizontal networksthat limit the types of resources that can be accessed. This is because people affiliate withresource-poor groups will form networks with other, equally poor people, thus restricting thevariety of information and influence that they share (Lin, 2000, p. 787). Females and peoplewith lower socioeconomic status most notably find themselves with this conundrum (Lin, 2000,pp. 788-789).

Within poor communities that have high levels of social capital, there is a propensity for tightknit networks that act as a deterrent to improvement and growth, which may discourage thosewishing to break those ties and change their lives (Gaarder et al., 2003, p. 11; Lin, 2000, p. 789).Disadvantaged actors benefit from networking with those outside of their respective groups,particularly those with greater access to resources; however, this may be done at the cost of theiridentity and good relations with their peers (Lin, 2000, p. 791). Lin’s view on horizontal verticalnetworks stands in contrast to Putnam’s view. Overall, there are costs and benefits to both typesof networks that need to be considered in any policy formulation that seeks to promote socialcapital.

Furthermore, the assets that are typically obtainable through the networks formed by peoplein poverty are not sufficient to move them out of poverty (Gaarder et al., 2003, p. 11; Lin 2000,

45

Page 46

p. 793). Woolcock (1998) suggests that a community’s institutions, and for that matter itsmembers, should have horizontal and vertical external, synergistic networks and this can befacilitated by a dynamic and cooperative relationship between top-down resources and bottomupcapacity building, which will create a range of people and materials capable of coping withcommunity issues and utilizing opportunities (as cited in Getz, 2008, p. 559; see also Millar &Kirkpatrick, 2005, p. 20).

Social capital has a significant relationship with equality. Where there are lower levels ofinequality there are higher levels of positive social capital, and conversely, where there arehigher levels of positive social capital there are lower levels of inequality (Getz, 2008, p. 576).Additionally, it should not be assumed that high levels of social capital within one group in acommunity will extend to high levels of social capital throughout the community (Paxton, 1999,p. 96).

Once an understanding of the value of social capital is reached, one begins to wonder how itcan be created or amplified to improve people’s lives. There would be substantial benefits froma policy increasing social capital, if there is something that a government, or any other entity,could do to increase it (Paldam & Svendsen, 2004, p. 250). While there are ways to foster thedevelopment of social capital often the most effective ways are indirect or brought aboutcircumstantially. All social capital is not the result of conscious investment; some of it isinherited or a result of belonging to particular group (Felp & Volker, 2004, p. 12). Social capitalcan also be created through social interactions that have other goals (Felp & Volker, 2004, p. 12;Putnam, 1993, p. 170), such as recreational sporting activities, collective projects, or socialgroups and activities. This is because personal interaction fortifies trust between actors that isboth inexpensive and reliable (Putnam, 1993, p. 172). Furthermore, third-party interventions toincrease social capital often fail due to the voluntary nature of social capital (Paldam &Svendsen, 2004, p. 250).

Coleman (1988) added to the discussion on social capital by recognizing it as a public good(as cited in Gaarder et al., 2003, p. 8; see also Putnam, 1993, p. 170), sounding the call for itscultivation and protection in governance systems and development initiatives. In order to fullyunderstand the dynamics and benefits of social capital there needs to be more research on thetopic in terms of theory and research, as well as its utilization, transference and measurement(Felp & Volker, 2004, p. 18; Paldam & Svendsen, 2004, p. 250; Paxton, 1999, p. 123; Uslaner &Dekker, 2001, p. 179).

4. Community Capacity

The previous sections of this chapter discussed the importance of development, focusing oncommunity, and the usefulness of social capital. The concept of community capacity pulls all ofthese important factors together under one framework that can direct research and policy.Although community capacity is not a perfect theory for broad stroke application, it is the mostcomprehensive and holistic concept and approach in the area of community development to date.However, it should be noted that community capacity has been used in a multitude ofcircumstances and has often been accused of being co-opted by government officials or donors tojustify their initiatives, so it is not without controversy. This section will introduce the conceptof community capacity and provide support for its use, as well as provide some areas in which itcan be improved.

46

Page 47

Community capacity is a standalone concept; however, it is useful to first have a basicunderstanding of its title components. One whole section of this chapter was dedicated tofurthering the understanding of community, and the concept of community will be expandedupon in a later chapter. However, for the sake of clarification in regards to the discussion oncommunity capacity, it is assumed that community is comprised of both a relational and spatialquality between actors.

The next component of the term, capacity, needs some explanation as well. Capacity, asdefined by the UNDP, is the ability of individuals, institutions, and societies to performfunctions, solve problems, and set and achieve objectives in a sustainable manner (Balassanian,2006, p. 4). Beth Honadle (1981) offers an earlier definition of capacity. She poses thedefinitional characteristics of capacity as the ability to: a) anticipate and influence change; b)make informed, intelligent decisions about policy; c) develop programs to implement policy; d)attract and absorb resources; e) manage resources; and f) evaluate current activities to guidefuture actions (Honadle, 1981, p. 577). Honadle’s definition of capacity is more specific than theUNDP’s, but both are related to the concept of community capacity. It should be noted that anunderstanding of capacity that over-stresses management capabilities or technical abilities can berestrictive and may draw attention away from other aspects of community life that are equallyimportant, which can lead to management and policy problems (Gorgan, 1981, p. 650).

Gittell and Vidal (1998) define capacity as the “potential for community residents to act oncollective commitments, interests, and objectives (p. 25).” Gittell and Vidal (1998) go on toinclude the capacity of social agents of the community, individuals (leadership and technologicaland organization skills), internal organizational capacity (local NGOs, businesses and projects),and network capacity (also known as bridging capital) (p. 25). The capacity of social agentsplays a role in community capacity because individuals, organizations, and networks are integralparts of a community.

Capacity by itself has little relevance unless it is discussed in the context of specific abilities.For instance, Gibson and Woolcock (2008) describe the “capacity to engage,” which consists ofboth “collective capacity” and “deliberative capacity” in relation to empowerment and civicengagement (p. 153). What really is being discussed is the ability of the group to think and worktogether, and the depth of these abilities are described as their “capacity to engage.” Similarly,community capacity is a framework to describe various important aspects of a community that incombination build a picture of the ability of the community to act on their own accordance.

Capacity and capability are often used interchangeably, but again are relevant only incontext. Focusing on developing human capabilities is not an entirely new concept indevelopment. In fact, Japan began to focus on developing human capabilities in the Meiji era(1868-1911) (Sen, 1999, p. 20). Currently there is a renaissance on the importance of fortifyingthe capabilities of people.

In contemporary discussions on development, there has been an increased emphasis ontaking a capacity-oriented approach (McKnight & Kretzmann, 1996). This approach recognizesthat community development only takes place when local people are committed to investingthemselves and their resources to development and that waiting for and relying on external“saviors” is futile (McKnight & Kretzmann, 1996).

Community capacity is an outcome of development and is likely to lead to economicdevelopment (McGuire et al., 1994, p. 427). Not only is community capacity an outcome of anydevelopment policy, but it can also contribute to the development process (Mendis-Millard &Reed, 2007, p. 545). This establishes the existence of a cycle of community capacity, and likesocial capital, the more you have, the more you can accumulate. Community capacity isnecessary for the creation of policy and development initiatives that will be successful throughparticipation (Dobbs & Moore, 2002, p. 162). Through combining the concepts of capabilitiesand social capital, community capacity becomes a useful way of framing a discussion oncommunity development and the policy making process.

The basic idea of community capacity is that it is the ability of a community to utilize theassets at their disposal to achieve community outcomes. Predecessors to current indices andframeworks of community capacity include the AGIL framework from Parsons (1951, as cited inFigueira-McDonough, 2001, p. 11). Looking at communities as systems, Parsons proffered fouranalytical functions of an independent social system: adaption (A) - the ability to generateresources for survival; goal attainment (G) - is the ability to make binding decisions for the socialunit; integration (I) - the network that permitted the distribution of basic services; and latentpattern maintenance and management (L) - the glue that held individuals together (i.e. socialcapital) (Figueira-McDonough, 2001, p. 11). Its similarities to community capacity can be seenin its emphasis on resources, goals, networks, and social capital.

A later adaptation and elaboration on the concept of community capacity can be seen inMichael McGuire, Barry Rubin, Robert Agranoff, and Craig Richards’s (1994) description ofcommunity capacity and development of community capacity indicators. McGuire andcolleagues (1994) conceptualize community capacity in terms of a) community participation, b)community structure, and c) development instruments (p. 427). Community participation dealswith community input and the strength of local political institutions and has indicatorsencompassing the acceptance of change/controversy/conflict, the acceptance of communitystrengths and weaknesses, and effective mechanisms for direct community participation andinput (McGuire et al., 1994, p. 427). Community structure describes governmental capacity andnetworks, as well as participation in development activities and has indicators such as dispersedleadership roles, vertical linkages, horizontal linkages, shared vision or direction, projectorientedinvolvement, and lead agencies (McGuire et al., 1994, p. 427). Developmentinstruments measure the degree to which appropriate and effective policy tools are used by thecommunity and is indicated by community spirit activities, infrastructure, appropriatedevelopment focus, major business development (McGuire et al., 1994, p. 427). The conceptand indicators laid out by McGuire and colleagues (1994) provide the groundwork for moderndiscussions on community capacity.

Using components similar to community capacity as described by McGuire and colleagues(1994), Sulley Gariba (1998) designed the Village Development Capacity index with the main

48

Page 49

idea that each community has a unique combination of social, political, economic, and culturalcharacteristics that determine its status and potential (p. 72). The index provides anunderstanding of the community’s characteristics to allow social agents to a) recognize thecommunity’s strengths, b) plan and implement policy, c) monitor project effects, d) evaluate theimpacts of policy and the change in the capacity of community, and e) identify new factorsrelating to community capacity and development (Gariba, 1998, p. 72). The parameters of thisindex are similar to community capacity, but without a specific guiding concept. The benefits ofgaining an in-depth understanding of a community’s situation, capability, and functions helpwith current and future policy making, and will be further fortified if there is a coherentconceptual framework for policy makers and practitioners to refer to, rather than a series of adhoc indices and tools.

To build their community capacity index for primary health care service delivery, RobertBush, Jo Dower, and Allyson Mutch (2002) define community capacity as a collection ofcharacteristics and resources which, when combined, improve the ability of a community torecognize, evaluate, and address key problems (p. 1). They examine four domains through theirindex: 1) network partnerships; 2) knowledge transfer; 3) problem solving; and 4) infrastructure(investment in the development of policy, social capital, human capital, and financial capital)(Bush et al., 2002, p. 1). The definition offered by Bush and colleagues encounters the sameproblem as Gariba’s index; in as such that it offers components and parameters without a strongconceptual framework.

Susan Saegert (2005) looks at civic capacity, which shares many of the same qualities ascommunity capacity. Saegert (2005) defines civic capacity as a) the ability to engage with thepublic domain, b) the capacity to influence social agenda, c) the capacity to access public andprivate sector resources, and d) the capacity to influence the physical and social environment (p.5). By describing this concept as civic capacity, it can be related to any spatial level. However,the understanding of community at various spatial levels eliminates this advantage. Additionally,through the expansion of the concept of community to include citizens, institutions,organizations, and government, merely looking at the civic side of capacity can be toorestricting. Saegert (2005) goes on to define community civic capacity as the social integrationof community residents into the larger society and the accumulation of power, influence, andresources (p. 11). This relates to how well the community functions as a unit and is more highlyrelated to the concept of community capacity.

Robert Chaskin, Prudence Brown, Sudhir Venkatesh, and Avis Vidal in their 2001 book,Building Community Capacity, offer their definition of community capacity as the interaction ofhuman capital, organizational resources, and social capital existing within a given communitythat can be leveraged to solve collective problems and improve or maintain the well-being of thatcommunity (p. 7). It may operate through informal social processes and/or organized efforts byindividuals, organizations, and social networks that exist among them and between them and thelarger system of which the community is a part (Chaskin et al., 2001, p. 7). Through identifyingthe characteristics of community capacity and devising strategies to enhance it, communities canbetter reach their potential, leaders and residents can be better informed, and ownership of thelocal situation can emerge to facilitate further development (Chaskin et al., 2001, p . 8).

The Chaskin and colleagues (2001) definition presents a comprehensive definition ofcommunity capacity that is broken into easily identifiable areas, which is conducive for furtherresearch. In addition to having distinct areas in the definition that can be further researched oranalyzed, there is some conceptual direction in the definition in terms of improving or

49

Page 50

maintaining the well-being of the community. The Chaskin Framework, herein after referred to,has been accepted in this work as the best definition of community capacity and has beenadopted as the main conceptual basis of this study.

Figure 2 is a visual representation of the Chaskin Framework. The chart demonstrates thatthe factors of community capacity (1) within a community are enacted through the levels ofsocial agency (2) to perform certain actions (3) of and for the community. The strategies (4) thatcan be utilized by community governance actors or external development policy makers mustwork through the levels of social agency (3) to facilitate or promote the functions of thecommunity or to minimize detrimental conditioning influences (5). The conditioning influences(5) on the community are directly related to the amount and quality of community capacitycharacteristics (1) that a community posses. Other outcomes (6) can be achieved through thefortification of the assets (1), agents (2), and actions (3) process, but a change in the otheroutcomes (6) may also have an affect on the conditioning influences (5) of the community(Chaskin et al., 2001, p. 13).

The specific components of Figure 2 are discussed in the following subsections. First, the (1)characteristics of community capacity will be outlined, followed by the (2) levels of socialagency, and the (3) community functions and (6) other outcomes. Lastly, the (5) conditioninginfluences will be discussed. The (4) community capacity building strategies will be discussedand elaborated on in the next section. The last subsection of this section on community capacitywill go over some of the advantages of considering community capacity in development andpolicy making.